speaker of the house john boehner said, let's not kid ourselves there's a stalemate. >> i think we're going to get there. i mean, just inevitably a little bit of political theater. sometimes that's a sign of progress. i think we're making some progress, but we're still some distance apart. what's at stake here is very important. we're trying not just to prevent a tax increase on 98% of americans, we're trying to go beyond that's going to be good for the long term american economy.

>> but you said you're getting closer, they're saying you're getting much farther apart. they say that this is not a serious proposal. >> we have a very good plan. we have a very good mix of tax reforms that raise a modest amount of revenues on the wealthy 2% of americans. combined with very comprehensive, very detailed savings that get us back to the point where the debt is stable and favorable. if we can do that carefully, we can invest in things to make america stronger. we can rebuild infrastructure. we think those are good investments in america and we think we can afford them. >> let's look at an outline of what republicans said they heard in the meeting. $1.6 trillion in tax increases over the next ten years. $50 billion in stimulus spending right now. $400 billion in unspecified medicare cuts.

over the next ten years. and then, permanent authority to increase the debt limit the president wants that authority. they look at that 1.6 trillion in revenue and say it's twice as much you get from raising taxes on the wealthy and much more than democrats would ever accept in the senate. that's why they say this is not serious. >> but let me start with what you said, we're making the threat of default. we propose to take an idea that senator mcconnell proposed in the summer of 2011 and extend that. what that does, it lifts the cloud of default over the economy. the president has increased the debt limit. congress has a chance to express approval of that. it's a very smart way by the senator with impeccable credentials to lift this threat. >> you said that he never intended it to be permanent? >> but, again, it was a good

idea then, it's a good idea going forward. it came from him. it wasn't our idea. that makes a lot of sense. what you said that wasn't quite right, what we laid out for them was, a detailed set of reforms in health programs, government programs over ten years, which are going to be tough, but we think they make sense. they don't like all those changes, they might want to go beyond that. but they have to tell us what those things are. you're right on the revenue side. we're proposing to let the rates go back to clinton levels. that would be a good thing to do as a sensible economic policy, and we want to combine that with tax reforms that will limit deductions. there's no surprise in this. we have been proposing this for a very long time. the president campaigned on it and i think that's where we're going to end up. and i think that's there going to be very broad support from the business community and from the american people for an agreement

with roughly that shape. >> when you talked about limiting the deductions there have been proposals from governor romney during the presidential campaign, and from other republicans, when you talk about those limitations on deductions, do you include the charitable deduction and the home mortgage deduction? >> i think you're right to point out the essential problem in this, which is, if you try to limit deductions with a $25,000 cap, what you do is you end up hitting millions and millions -- actually 17 million americans -- a huge part of the revenue comes from that basic fact, which we're not prepared to do -- it completely eliminates the incentives for wealthy americans to give to charities and if you protect the charitable contributions you reduce. so, those proposals, they may be worth considering, but if you design them carefully, they don't raise revenue you need to get us back to a

fiscally responsible position. >> are you saying that the charitable deductions should be off the table? >> we propose a percentage limit on the value of all of the deductions and inclusions for 2% of americans. what that does is, it preserves a very significant economic incentive for americans to give to charities. of course, that's very important for all universities across americans and all hospitals and millions and millions nonprofit entities across the country. we think that's a better way to do it. that slightly reduces the marginable benefit of the deductions. >> one of the things that the republicans want to know is, if the president is still behind the idea, for example, gradually raising the eligibility age for medicare, this adjustment in social security payments and so-called change that would adjust the cost of living adjustments, is the president still behind those ideas? >> there are other things that

we can do to strengthen medicare and strengthen social security. what i can do is to tell you the merit of the specific things we proposed. which, again, are very substantial savings over ten years. and when republicans come to us and say, we would like to do something different or beyond that, and if it meets our basic values and our test we'll give it serious consideration. >> you're willing to consider new restrictions on social security -- >> no, i didn't say that. let me clarify. thank you for asking. what the president is willing to do is to work with democrats and republicans to strengthen social security for future generations. so americans can approach retirement with dignity and the confidence they can retire with a modest guaranteed benefit. but we think you have to do that in a separate process so that our seniors don't face the concern that we're somehow going to find savings in social security benefits to help reduce the other deficits.

>> to be clear that's one thing that's clearly off the table. social security is off the tables in these negotiations. >> in a separate process to strengthen social security not as a process to reduce the deficit. on the issues of taxes, is there any flexibility on the president's position? does it have to go all the way back to the tax rates on the wealthy to the clinton levels? >> again, george, we think the best way to do this is to have those tax rates go back to where and one of the best, at one of the most prosperous times in recent american history to combine that reforms that limit reductions for 2%, i'm deeply skeptical about ways to get through this without that mix of rates and reforms. >> and if congress doesn't

agree, you're comfortable going over that cliff on january 1st? >> there's no reason why 98% of americans have to see their taxes go up because some members of congress on the republican side want to block tax rate increase for 2% of the wealthy americans. remember, those tax cuts cost a trillion dollars over ten years. there is no responsible way we can govern this country at a time of enormous threat, risk, challenge, uncertainty, millions of americans retire, huge levels of poverty, with those low rates in place for future generations, those rates will have to go up. that's an essential part. >> lot of democrats think if the republicans do indeed dig in on those tax rates, it's far preferable to go over the cliff than to reach a different kind of deal? do you agree? >> i don't think that's going to happen. it certainly doesn't need to happen. we'll work hard to make sure it doesn't happen. we'll try to do something good

for the long-term. >> what would happen to the economy if we do go over the cliff? >> it would be very damaging to average americans. there's no doubt about it. but there's no reason why it has to happen. we're going to work hard to prevent it. the only reason that would happen if a small group of congress they'll block an agreement because they're not prepare to see tax rates raise modestly for just 2% of americans. >> i hear you speak they're going to work hard. but republicans saying you're going backwards not forward. what is the specific next step to get this back on track? is the president ready to meet face to face with the speaker, face to face with the republican leader in the senate to try to nail this down? >> of course he is. we'll do that when it makes sense. at this point, though, you got to recognize that they're in a very difficult place. and they recognize they'll have to move in a bunch of things,

they don't know how to do it yet. so, what we're going to do is to continue look for ways to solve this problem. but, ultimately, they have to come to us and tell us what they need. what we can't do is to keep guessing about what -- >> the ball is in their court? >> absolutely. absolutely. they understand that. when they come back to us and say, we would like you to consider this and that, we'll take a look at that. >> one final question, this is your last assignment for the president, wrapping up these negotiations, so, how much longer you're going to be staying? interesting to see this week, warren buffett thinks your best replacement would be the head of hp, jamie dimon. >> i think he, if we did run into problems in markets i think he would be the best person we could have. >> any chance of that? >> george, the president is going to choose somebody very talented to lead the treasury for his next four years. i'm very fortunate, i have been able to work with him to help solve these problems for the

country over this period of time and i'm very confident he's going to have somebody in place in january to succeed me. >> i didn't think you were going to bite on that. thanks for your time this morning. mr. secretary, thank you. >> thanks, george. our powerhouse roundtable is coming right up. we'll get their take on secretary geithner. the tax debates that's dividing the gop. are they forcing a deal or poisoning the wealth? all that in just 90 seconds. ♪ [ male announcer ] navigating your future can be daunting without a financial plan. your plan should be built to your specific needs so that it lasts through every stage of your life. ♪ at pacific life, we can give you the tools

to help you achieve financial independence. ♪ tools that help you protect your family, supplement your retirement, build your business, and plan your legacy. ♪ for more than 140 years, pacific life has assisted families and businesses in meeting their goals, even in uncertain economic times. ♪ let us help protect the things that you work so hard for. to find out how, visit pacificlife.com. ♪ pacific life. the power to help you succeed. aids is not going to take my baby. ♪ aids will not take our future. ♪ our weapons are testing... education, care and support.

♪ and aids... ♪ aids is going to lose. aids is going to lose. ♪ roundtable time now. george will is off. glad to have cokie roberts here. also dan senor. steve rattner and two congressmen, congressman tom cole of oklahoma, also a member of the republican leadership, and keith ellison, chair of the progressive caucus. cokie, tim geithner said they're making progress. >> congressman cole does, too. >> i want to hear that. >> but it hasn't been a very encouraging week for people who think that the fiscal cliff is not something that we want to go over and i think that the president's proposal that was

put on the table was something that republicans were not going to accept, even close to accept, so it had the air of bizarre. you know, bargaining. but put a really high price out there so that when you start the negotiating -- >> when will the real negotiating begin? congressman cole? >> i want to thank the president and secretary geithner for reuniting and re-energizing the republican caucus. because that offer -- they must think that john boehner is santa claus, because it was a christmas wish list, it wasn't a real proposal. at the end of the day, do i think we'll arrive at a deal? i do. >> but you heard secretary geithner right there, and i want to get congressman ellison in this as well. they're not going to come forward with anything new right now? >> i don't know -- there's a little bit of chicken going on

here in terms of gamesmanship. we'll have a lot of discussion. i don't think we need to put a formal proposal out on the table. speaker's already said that revenue is on the table. he has an idea about how to get there in terms of not raising rates but finding it in other ways in terms of tax code reforms. that's a adorable thing. beyond that, you know, we'll wait and see how the negotiations go. >> we heard from secretary geithner, congressman ellison, social security for now is off the table in these negotiations but talking about significance cuts in medicare, can your caucus accept those? >> i was meeting with seniors in my district just yesterday, they're very worried. we have seniors already paying more than they can afford for medications. already worried about that. i'm not going to tell them they're going to do less. while we're not going to raise taxes on the top 2 .. that's just ridiculous. you know, i think -- i think tom's right. we'll probably end up with some

kind of a deal. but not on the backs of the most vulnerable people. >> dan senor, that conflicts with a lot of the reporting that i had on capitol hill. you saw significant numbers of republicans and democrats more willing to accept the idea of going over the cliff at least for a few days? >> yeah, i think, as one republican house member said to me, good lesson in negotiating is not make your opening offer one of humiliation. i think there's a sense now, republicans i have spoken to, particularly in the leadership, have said, look, if we go over the cliff, we're going to get blamed. "the view" is shifting a little bit now, where there's a sense that, if president obama goes into his second term and poisons the environment so much that he can't get a deal and we go over the cliff it's going to

be so toxic for year two, year three and year four. the president has to worry about his legacy. even though republicans might get blamed, this whole idea of the president bringing this country together, >> democrats have to be wary of. isn't it? >> i don't see it that way at all. look, the president has made a proposal. it may not be what everyone likes. i don't think it was an outrageous proposal. it's consistent with everything he said before. it's a proposal, a real proposal. the republicans have put nothing on the table. if we go over the cliff, it's not at all clear to the american people are going to blame the president as opposed to a party. >> the blame is real dispiriting because the idea of who's going to get the blame instead of figuring out how to keep it from happening is exactly what drives voters nuts. >> they might have to be aware of who's going to get the blame

before they come to a deal. one proposal came, from your congressman cole, you're saying accept part of president's proposal, pass right now, an extension of the tax cuts for 98% for americans and then fight over the rest later. what speaker boehner said about that. >> i told tom earlier in our conference meeting, you're not going to grow the economy if you raise tax rates on the top two rates. it will hurt small businesses it will hurt your economy, that's why this is not the right approach. >> i saw he disagreed. other republicans coming forward including bill kristol -- >> but, look, i actually do believe that we should take things where we agree with the president and we do agree on this and take them off the table one at a time. this will actually strengthen our position in the course of negotiations. the president hasn't been very

specific. entitlement reforms and it leaves us free to still fight to keep rates constant. try to reach revenue in another way. at the end of the day, again, these rates hit every single american at the end of the month. not as if congress has to do something to keep that from happening. >> i mean -- politically smart move. >> dan would say that. >> 98% of americans then know that their taxes aren't going to go up in january. their payroll taxes might. their income taxes are not. and that is huge. and the truth is, from what i'm hearing, the top 2% better start making financial plans. >> there's no question about that. what's wrong with this proposal?

>> look, there are parts of this proposals are reasonable. the bigger problem here is, if the president is sticking to this position, at least for the time being that he outlined last week, would be the equivalent of the republicans saying we want the ryan budget, we want marginal tax rates cut across the board 20%. i'll tell you, steve, i think he has dug in, he spent more time on the phone this week from what i understand with steve israel, chairman of the democrat chair than he did with john boehner. tell me what he's telling those hard left groups about his position and how he can walk back to something more reasonable like something that tom's for. given what he's saying with these hard left groups. >> he's trying to do something different than he's done before.

which is take his message outside the beltway, outside of capitol hill, and try to bring it to the people. i'm totally in favor of that. look, in the negotiations, speaker boehner was reportedly offered revenue. the presidents asked for $1.6 trillion in revenue. there's a bid. there's an ask. >> let me bring that to congressman ellison, we started to see the beginnings of a counteroffer from mitch mcconnell. he offered three things. he said that he's gradual increase in the eligibility age for medicare. some adjustments to social security cola. i believe those are all nonstarters to you and the progressive caucus. >> those would be a problem because raising rates and increasing eligibility age is going to hurt people across income scales. particularly low income seniors and people like that. that wouldn't work for us. >> the president has been open

to some of that before. >> here's the deal, the people of the united states believe that medicare is an important program. they don't want to see beneficiaries cut. if we find cuts that don't result in cuts to beneficiaries that's one thing. but we're not going to go after seeing the president win this election, we won the white house, turn right around and undermine the people who helped put us there. >> you know, it is interesting. the older voters did vote republican and medicare was out there. i mean, paul ryan budget was there. and the older voters went for governor romney. >> remember,, he won with fewer voters. the republican performance was better than it was four years ago. the reality is, nobody can look at this budget and think that if you don't reform entitlements you can balance it. >> but it's a matter of where do you balance it? do you balance it on the backs on the people who can least

afford it? >> but to get a deal, we have a divided government. the president won. we can argue about whether it's a mandate. there will have to be compromise. $16 trillion debt. trillion a year deficit. you're not going to solve all that with tax increases and cutting discretionary programs. we have to fix the intitlement programs. we can talk about how we do it. >> you have to be specific, steve. because when you talk about fixing the entitlement programs, we're clear, social security is off the table. what do you mean? >> what secretary geithner said is on a separate process. >> we're talking about between now and 30 days from now. >> this is preeminently where a president has to lead and be specific. you can't expect the republicans to lead on an area that he's dominated in politically. >> here's an entitlement idea,

a way to help support medicare, let them dictate price -- drug prices. >> steve, this, to me, is a much more interesting debate than tom and dan. because i think the president has done exactly what he's done in the past in this negotiating. he's not grinding it out with speaker boehner. he's out giving speeches, rallying his base. meeting with groups like moveon.org. how will he be able to walk back from the position he's taken? with the base of your conference feel like he caved. the president just won this historic re-election, how can he walk back now after he won re-election from this position? >> you know, i think that he's got the wind at his back. the american people want him to stand up for these essential programs. now, look, american people do want to see cost containment. we can do that in ways that

doesn't result in cuts to beneficiaries. >> we'll have to take a break. right now, lot more roundtable ahead. what's ahead for susan rice? mitt romney's team takes on the critics and what really happened when the rivals had lunch. both men acted graciously, after lunch, mitt romney extend a return invitation to the president to visit him and his money at the cayman island. >> it's a nice gesture for the president considering that he hasn't let joe biden have lunch with him even once. that he hasn't let joe biden have lunch with him even once.

as you heard, we have lots more to talk about with our roundtable right after this from our abc stations.

>> but, the problem with controlling costs you can only do that to some degree. every single year we go back and do the "doc" fix and we'll do it between now and january 1st. that is all always a phoney that congress is going to cut payments to doctors and doctors pull out of the medicare program. >> and the money is restored. >> it's hard to do this without structural reforms. >> let me, if you don't mind, we have seen people's retirement package reduced. we have seen people's individual savings, go down. you can't keep on seeing 401(k)s go down and then say, we're

going to cut the other stuff that people count on. >> the numbers have to work. >> i want to turn to the tax debate as well. you guys are sitting back. let's get to the tax debate. you have seen speaker boehner, and other republicans say, more revenues, but drawing the line on tax rate increases and grover norquist has come out hard again saying that republicans have to stand by the pledge. >> if the republicans lose in such a way that they got their fingerprints on the murder weapon then you have a problem. bush couldn't run again in 1992 successfully because he had his fingerprints on a very bad deal. bad on spending and bad on savings. >> is he right about those politics? >> you know, i think not actually, but i think -- you have to remember our fingerprints aren't on this if we cooperate with the president and make 80% of the bush tax

cuts permanent for the 98% of the american people. that's a victory not a loss. we're still free to fight the fight over higher rates. offering revenue, which the speaker has put on the table. i think we have the opportunity to take the initiative and actually, again, move the the discussion on discussion on entitlements. >> and dan, something else that republicans are worried about, not 92 but 1994 when the government shut down, newt gingrich was blamed. >> trust me, you talk to republicans, no matter how this shakes off, if we go over the fiscal cliff, we are to blame. i hear that over and over. something to what tom said, it's an amazing notion that a just-elected democrat president is necessary to make permanent the bush tax cuts. they were tax rate cuts across the board. the idea that most of them could

be made permanent -- bush couldn't have gotten that done in 2004 after being re-elected. i do think that republicans should take a victory lap in that regard. >> it is really politically smart to do this. you know, but it's also particularly smart to cut the knees out from under grover norquist. who is he? he's an unelected -- >> it's not him. >> he represents something that's real. he represents something that's real. >> i think everybody recognizes to get these numbers to work you have to have revenue increases. the question is, do you need tax rate increases or not? i think it's very tough to make the math work. >> honestly, i think -- and i like grover, but there is a big -- but there's a big, big difference between not being able to extend our temporary tax cuts.

that to me isn't a violation of the pledge. i didn't sign a pledge i have to extend every temporary tax cut. and i think -- >> you're not for that? >> well, look, if you can find a way, great, but i don't like cutting payroll taxes because the cut is always temporary. you have to fund social security and medicare. no. >> what about the pledge to the american people to act fiscally responsibly for everybody, i mean, i actually think that it's great that you made that proposal. but the reality is, most of the congressional districts that are republicans are today they are -- a lot of them are more concerned about a primary challenge to the re-election than to a general challenge to the general election. you're talking about real politics on the ground in these congressional districts.

a number of these members ran on strong, you know, fiscal responsible pro-growth agendas. it's not about grover norquist. >> you can make a case that it's not fiscally responsible. >> i think it's going to be very hard for the republicans at the end to resist some rate increase. it's very hard to argue why the top 2% shouldn't see some increase. >> basically, what congressman cole was saying. >> compromise involves compromise in both directions. you're talking about a very small change in marginal rates. i have been in the working world in the 30 years. i don't see their attitude changing. >> people are paying off of dividends and income and not just payroll. >> it's not about the rich people. lot of businesses and small businesses -- >> let me say --

>> i agree with you, i do think that the republican leadership at some point here needs to put forward publicly its plan. i mean that's something -- it's sort of an awkward negotiation. i think the president has gone too far out on the left. i think you're seeing the beginnings of it. >> small pieces. >> to be fair to leader mcconnell he's always been very forthright. entitlement reforms take both sides. i think he very much. >> i want to move on. let me go quickly around the table, does this get done before january 1st or not? >> yes. >> probably. >> if shay so, i believe it. >> yes. >> probably. >> wow, i'm going to be the only no. let's see what happens. >> really? let's move on to susan rice. right now, you saw last week on

suggested that they would be more open to the idea at least that she might be secretary of state. then she went up to capitol hill this weekend and listen to the senators after the meeting with the u.n. ambassador rice. >> i continue to be troubled by the fact that the u.n. ambassador decided to play what was essentially a political role. >> we're significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. >> the concerns i have are greater today than they were before. >> i got to say, cokie, i was surprised by all that. usually you don't go to a meeting like that unless you have an idea of how it's going to turn out. >> it is surprising. what we're dealing with, to some degree, something that dan was just talking about, that republicans, particularly senator graham, are more worried about their primaries than their general elections and there is some amount of trying to prove your conservative credentials here.

and i think that senator graham has been out there on issues like immigration and other issues where conservatives aren't with him. to go the attack on ambassador rice -- >> it's not just senator graham. it's susan collins, a moderate from maine, who introduced susan rice at her combination hearing. it's bob corker. very much a moderate, very much works across party lines. i know that steve has worked with him. these are people not worried about primary challenges. i spoke to one senator this week, this consequences, this individual conveyed was that these meetings did not go well. benghazi was a serious issue. we can debate whether or not susan rice should be blamed for it. but she was front and center. and i think the administration has handled this terribly. they have put her out there as though she's going to be a nominee but they haven't nominated her. john carney is being asked

questions about her. now she's under the media onslaught for her investments. companies in iran. investments in canada. she gets all of the downside of being a nominee without any of the infrastructure and support for her. >> we can talk about that and debate that. but what i believe, i think what she did was entirely appropriate. she was given a set of talking points, to the best of our knowledge the white house used one world. she went out there and did it. now she's being torn apart for it. it's as if, when george was interviewing tim geithner was supposed to have gone and add up the numbers for their budget and make sure it was right. >> if she was a nominee there would be a whole infrastructure to support her. >> right. >> none of that is the case. >> i think that she's being treated horribly.

>> by the administration too? >> well, i think she's done good work. she helped get the consequences for the no-fly zone in libya. that was hard work to do. she came through for the people attacking her right now, like senator mccain. i think it's an urn fortunate circumstance. the woman is great. >> how much of this is about the merits and some of the senate politics? >> i would like to believe that not much has to deal with politics. there's a legitimate concern, that, five days after the fact, propagated a story that we should have known at the time wasn't the case. some serious questions about our own intelligence people. maybe we should ask those guys some questions. but, you want a secretary of state in the end, that can unite you not divide you.

secretary clinton has managed to do that. >> cokie, what if the president -- what should the president do right now? he hadn't made up his mind to choose susan rice. it was between susan rice and john kerry. you can look at the politics on either way. boy you can't back down on this opposition, on the other hand, is this a fight he wants to have? >> to have a nomination fight over secretary of state is really an unusual and shocking thing. and so, i think that, probably in the end, he doesn't do it. but i do think that it is -- but he, again, he put her in this position and then -- then she gets the opposition and then he says, well, i can't name you. it's unfair. maybe in the end, he realizes that. >> well, i don't think we should link whether or not she -- what happened in benghazi and whether she gets the nomination. i would hate to conclude that the reason she doesn't get that nomination is because of this

stuff that just happened. they're not necessarily connected. i just want to -- >> talk radio is just full of benghazi. it is a big issue. >> which is amazing to me. in 1982, we lost 241 marines in lebanon and the country came around president reagan, you didn't see all of this partisan bickering -- >> wait. wait a minute. >> -- we came together and said that this is a national tragedy and blame was not parcelled out the way it is now. i think it's unfortunate. >> you look at 1982, there actually an airing. there was accountability. part of the problem here, in the lead-up to the election when benghazi got a lot of attention, the president said don't talk about benghazi, if you were you're politicizing the issue. here we are after the election, and there's no full airing. we still don't know exactly what

happened. >> hold on. wait a second. that may be true, but is it really what happened on a sunday show? what was the security situation at the mission in benghazi? but that's not her job. >> true. what happened in benghazi. there's an investigation going on from two high-level people. we'll get the report and then we can debate. >> i don't believe what's being done to susan rice right now is fair, it's politics and it's ugly. it may force the president not to nominate her. >> this political part about it is not only just the upset over benghazi, there's the internal senate politics, and john kerry, now he's not always been a favorite of his colleagues, but they seem to be supporting him now, but there's also the question, if he leaves the senate, who gets elected in massachusetts? >> look, i think everyone understands that john kerry is

going to be nominated for something. if not for secretary of state, it could be for secretary of defense. this idea they're holding up susan rice because of this plan to get scott brown maybe elected -- >> that's too much much. >> look, there is this investigation going on in this benghazi. there was a complete security vacuum in libya before september 11th, 2012. there was. i mean, there were transactional terror groups were able to fill that vacuum. our security was dependent on those locals. these are things that we know. what happened on september 11th? these are things that he knows. what happened after september 11th? in terms of how the administration communicated to the american people. these are basic questions that can be answered and they haven't been, which is why you see one opening which is this possible nomination of susan rice -- >> and that nomination would become an entire investigation of benghazi. that's what that nomination would become. >> susan rice wasn't responsible for benghazi. >> i understand that.

>> they have all of those good questions, they should ask those questions. >> the president has to make a decision here, do i really want this fight? is this really going to be helpful? is this in the best interest of the country? do i void the fight? find somebody else that's perfectly acceptable? my money is that he probably comes down there. he'll have plenty of fights. this isn't one i would pick. >> couple of minutes left. that picture of mitt romney and president obama in the oval office and ask dan senor, the statement that came out of the white house is, maybe if something comes up in the future they can work together, any insight into what really happened? >> not much that i can get into, other than to say -- no, no,

they both -- actually, both president obama and governor romney agreed that they would keep it close. i think it was an nteresting discussion, probably more interesting than some of the images that you showed earlier of gore and bush. i take president obama for his word. what he said publicly at that press conference after his elections. they may have talked about some of those issues. i think they'll have an open channel of communication. >> what are republicans going to be looking for mitt romney to do in the future? >> probably raise more money. he had a great campaign team and staff around him. you know, who he supports in 2016 will matter. if he chooses to do that. >> okay, we have to take one more quick break. as we look at this good samaritan picture, the roundtable is going to weigh in on where they find hope in politics. that's next. two years ago, the people of bp made a commitment to the gulf.

bp has paid over twenty-three billion dollars to help those affected and to cover cleanup costs. today, the beaches and gulf are open, and many areas are reporting their best tourism seasons in years. and bp's also committed to america. we support nearly 250,000 jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. i'i invest in what i know.r. i turned 65 last week. i'm getting married. planning a life. there are risks, sure. but, there's no reward without it. i want to be prepared for the long haul. i see a world bursting with opportunities. india, china, brazil, ishares, small-caps, large-caps, ishares. industrials. low cost. every dollar counts. ishares. income. dividends. bonds. i like bonds.

ishares. commodities. diversification. choices. my own ideas. ishares. i want to use the same stuff the big guys use. ishares. 9 out of 10 large, professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. introducing the ishares core, etfs for the heart of your portfolio. tax efficient and low cost building blocks to help you keep more of what you earn. call your advisor. visit ishares.com. ishares. yeah, ishares. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. ♪ >> when i remember that night, it was extremely cold. to look down at this gentleman's feet, he nad no socks. my heart went out to him. i ran ahead of him. i went into skechers. i asked them, i don't care what it cost, this gentleman needs a pair of shoes. they were able to help me out. it was cold.

i didn't want him doing it himself. i just knelt down. i didn't think anything of it. >> and that simple act of kindness from the officer went around the world. it has been seen millions and millions of time. right now, it gives us the opportunity here, to identify some things that are giving you hope in the political world. >> in the political world? i'm just back from vietnam, where i was doing some work for save the children, eventually we get it right. it takes a long time some times. we're doing wonderful development work there. we're putting shoes all kinds of people, especially little children. >> dan? >> this week, the jack kemp foundation is having its inaugural conference and people like paul ryan and marco rubio are speaking at it, you look at their speeches, it's all about the war on poverty. it's all about strengthening civil society. you look at these ideas, he said that this is something that we

could do. strangely there's a war on poverty campaign that democrats and republicans could find common ground. >> what gives me hope that we had an election that was hard-fought. in the end, the american people basically made a statement that they believe in government, they believe that government can still help solve programs. they believe it's government's job to focus on those most in need. >> look, i think -- i agree. the american people, i think, told us they want us to work together. the great thing about our system is, over time the will of american people always works through it. you got some checks and some balances. but in the end, politicians do what people tell them to do. >> i think you got a public employee going above and beyond the call of duty to help a homeless person just makes me think our government workers are pretty good people. >> no question about that. one of this things that i was encouraged looking back at the election, we actually saw that young people stayed engaged this

time around. their share of the electorate actually went up over 2000 and that's a hopeful sign to have continued participation going forward. >> thank you all very much. great roundtable. dan is going to stick around and answer questions. that's "this week" web extra. when we come back -- i'll take your questions. -- i'll take your questions. one is for a clean, wedomestic energy future that puts us in control. our abundant natural gas is already saving us money, producing cleaner electricity, putting us to work here in america and supporting wind and solar. though all energy development comes with some risk, we're committed to safely and responsibly producing natural gas. it's not a dream. america's natural gas... putting us in control of our energy future, now.

and now, we honor our fellow americans who serve and sacrifice. this week, the pentagon released the names of two service members killed in afghanistan.

the names of two service members killed in afghanistan. and when we come back, this question, of all of the american presidents, who would you like to interview? made a commitment to the gulf. bp has paid over twenty-three billion dollars to help those affected and to cover cleanup costs. today, the beaches and gulf are open, and many areas are reporting their best tourism seasons in years. and bp's also committed to america. we support nearly 250,000 jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. music is a universal language. but when i was in an accident... i was worried the health care system spoke a language all its own with unitedhealthcare, i got help that fit my life. information on my phone. connection to doctors who get where i'm from. and tools to estimate what my care may cost. so i never missed a beat.

we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. finally, your voice this week. today's question comes from robert day. if you could go back in time what president would you interview and why? any and all is the easy answer. here are a few. who wouldn't want to hear abe lincoln explain all of the agonizing compromises to keep our country whole. thomas jefferson, to reconcile his immortal words from the declaration of independence.

for his unapologetic ownership of slaves. those are just a few of my picks. and that's all for us today. thanks for sharing part of your sunday with us. check out "world news" with david muir tonight and i'll see you tomorrow on "good morning america." [ male announcer ] introducing...

a new way to save on your prescriptions. it's the aarp medicarerx saver plus plan from unitedhealthcare. with this plan, you can get copays as low as a dollar through a preferred network pharmacy like walgreens -- where you'll find 8,000 convenient locations. best of all, this plan has the lowest part d premium in the united states -- only $15 a month.